> I certainly wouldn't argue that the web should be real-name only

100% agreed. The vast majority of the web is based around pseudonymous interaction (even this comment thread). I love that about the web, but I also appreciate Facebook creating one place to foster those real world connections.

I would prefer to be able to explicitly set a pseudoynmous profile (name, profile picture, etc) in groups that we join (e.g., gaming groups, where FB is Super Awesome for out-of-game collaboration, but where not everyone needs to be able to see my profile picture or name).

On the one hand, one might say that this is using FB counter to its intentions ... but on the other, it seems clear that the ubiquity of FB chat, the excellence of many other things (shared discussion, etc), and the general stickiness that the platform has indicate that they want you to use it for as much as possible.

I'd love it if people who feel they are in danger can join communities, or even comment on things freely. I'd probably be happy even if such pseudonymous accounts were flagged visibly. As it is, many of my real-life friends in the SCA or in gaming groups __already__ create dual FB accounts (one for Real Them, one for their SCA or gaming persona), and it doesn't really inhibit trusted interactions with them. I'm fortunate not to feel I __need__ one, but I'd love to have my comments on some things (gaming forums, etc) be more in-character and less tied to my public persona.

At the same time, having real names hasn't seemed to reduce the abusive behavior that one sees (e.g. any political post, or Youtube comments) noticeably, because strangers are effectively anonymous.

That's an interesting idea. You have a good point: Facebook has developed a really powerful and sticky social platform. While they explicitly want the primary experience on that platform to be around real world communications, there's no fundamental reason that the technology couldn't simultaneously be used for digital communities.

I feel strongly that the communities shouldn't overlap (I do not want to see pseudonyms in my comment threads), but the idea of a parallel Facebook where alternative profiles can interact with alternative profiles is interesting.

> I certainly wouldn't argue that the web should be real-name only, but nor do I believe everyone always has an automatic right to post on privately-owned websites using pseudonyms.

For a lot of people, Facebook is "The Web". That's all or almost all they use. The less tech-literate ones don't even know "the web", they connect to Facebook. They get their news from Facebook. They communicate on Facebook. Everything they do online, they do on Facebook.

Like someone mentioned above, when you get big enough you start to have responsibilities. When your actions affect and your voice is heard by billions of people, you're no longer "some random privately-owned website"... you're a supergiant with the ability to affect the entire world.

The real-name local facebook group for my small town is a cesspool, so ymmv.